Anyone else feel sorry for Julian Assange?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Julian Assange has been effectively incarcerated for 5 years now but has never been charged with a crime. He has released documents that the powers that be didn't want him to, but to me that should never make someone a criminal. I think he has been treated unfairly.

Was reading his doctors report here which states he is living in conditions similar to those endured in Guantanamo Bay, which also coincidentally happens to hold people who have never been convicted of a crime.

His health is deteriorating according to the doctors report and he cannot receive adequate healthcare inside the embassy. I think he is being unjustly treated.

toptom

No he is no better than the terrorists America is trying to defeat. The rubbish he releases puts the troops and politicians in danger from terrorists and does nothing for moral in the war effort.

whiskeyman

Free rent.
Free wifi.


lucky lad

Nope.

Why would I?

He knew that what he was doing was dangerous. He knew of the risks. Why would I feel sorry for someone who willingly put themselves in this position?

BrokenArrows

toptom wrote: »

No he is no better than the terrorists America is trying to defeat. The rubbish he releases puts the troops and politicians in danger from terrorists and does nothing for moral in the war effort.

Thats Bull****.
The war wouldnt exist if america would just keep its noses out of places where it didnt belong.

The wars in that region have been going on for a long long time and the US being involved have just made things worse.

Assange has been releasing documents which show the extent of what the US does illegally.

Advbrd

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Julian Assange has been effectively incarcerated for 5 years now but has never been charged with a crime. He has released documents that the powers that be didn't want him to, but to me that should never make someone a criminal. I think he has been treated unfairly.

Was reading his doctors report here which states he is living in conditions similar to those endured in Guantanamo Bay, which also coincidentally happens to hold people who have never been convicted of a crime.

His health is deteriorating according to the doctors report and he cannot receive adequate healthcare inside the embassy. I think he is being unjustly treated.

So the Ecuadorian embassy is similar to Guantanamo Bay?

Your Face

I never will feel sorry for anyone called Julian.

dd972

I hear Justeat.co.uk aren't complaining too loudly.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

toptom wrote: »

No he is no better than the terrorists America is trying to defeat. The rubbish he releases puts the troops and politicians in danger from terrorists and does nothing for moral in the war effort.

Who's troops and politicians? American troops who he showed killing unarmed civilians or American politicians who he showed to be corrupt and criminal? He's dangerous because he has helped release some truth into the world?

Or is the truth only for some people?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Advbrd wrote: »

So the Ecuadorian embassy is similar to Guantanamo Bay?

The doctor in the report made the comparison. You are free to read it if you like.

ohnonotgmail

His situation is entirely of his own doing.

Nidom

A lot of speculation online that he's either dead, has escaped the embassy or been captured.

osarusan

Swedish prosecutors visited him about 10 days ago and he was questioned by them (or by the Ecuadorian prosecutor in their presence, something like that).

The statute of limitations has run out on every charge except the rape charge - that one will run out in 2020, so he might be in the embassy until then.

He has always said he is willing to go to Sweden if they promise that he won't be extradited to the USA, but they have refused to consider that (the Swedish government does have the power to make that promise though).

Advbrd

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

The doctor in the report made the comparison. You are free to read it if you like.

Read it. Thought the comparison was a bit overstated.

ohnonotgmail

osarusan wrote: »

Swedish prosecutors visited him about 10 days ago and he was questioned by them (or by the Ecuadorian prosecutor in their presence, something like that).

The interview was a nonsense.

osarusan wrote: »

The statute of limitations has run out on every charge except the rape charge - that one will run out in 2020, so he might be in the embassy until then.

He has always said he is willing to go to Sweden if they promise that he won't be extradited to the USA, but they have refused to consider that (the Swedish government does have the power to make that promise though).

that does seem to be his intention. a fine upstanding fellow.

5rtytry56

Julian Assange categorically stated:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ7lYRnF1F8

No, I have no sympathy for Mr Assange.

EDIT: I have no respect for him.

BattleCorp

I wouldn't stir out of that embassy if I was him either. He'll never see the light of day if America get him.

seaniefr

Honestly who gives a toss? As they say here " if you are in a hole and can't get out it's best not to keep digging"

BrokenArrows

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Julian Assange has been effectively incarcerated for 5 years now but has never been charged with a crime. He has released documents that the powers that be didn't want him to, but to me that should never make someone a criminal. I think he has been treated unfairly.

Was reading his doctors report here which states he is living in conditions similar to those endured in Guantanamo Bay, which also coincidentally happens to hold people who have never been convicted of a crime.

His health is deteriorating according to the doctors report and he cannot receive adequate healthcare inside the embassy. I think he is being unjustly treated.

I do feel sorry for him.
Hes basically screwed for the moment. But the swedes have begun interviewing him in the UK about the charges against him in Sweden.
So there is a chance they they will drop the charges at which point he can leave the embassy.

His only reason for not going to sweden is because he is afraid that they will extradite him to the USA.

Advbrd

5rtytry56 wrote: »

Julian Assange categorically stated:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ7lYRnF1F8

No, I have no sympathy for Mr Assange.

So the video shows that Hillary Clinton accepted that the Saudis were financing ISIL. I have no problem with that being leaked. On the other hand, it is a video from RT.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Advbrd wrote: »

Read it. Thought the comparison was a bit overstated.

Well he is in a very unique situation that the vast majority of people have never had to go through. The doctor also made the comparison of his situation to being held in long term solitary confinement in a maximum security prison.

They are more than fine and adequate comparisons to me considering the doctors rational behind him saying it and the first hand experience he has of the situation.

I don't think anyone can say something is 'overstated' if a person has been confined to the same room for years, hasn't seen daylight, has been surrounded by armed guards 24/7 and hasn't seen their family in so long.

osarusan

BrokenArrows wrote: »

So there is a chance they they will drop the charges at which point he can leave the embassy.

Swedish court upheld the arrest warrant as recently as September.

Maybe things will change in the light of the recent interviews at the embassy.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

BrokenArrows wrote: »

I do feel sorry for him.
Hes basically screwed for the moment. But the swedes have begun interviewing him in the UK about the charges against him in Sweden.
So there is a chance they they will drop the charges at which point he can leave the embassy.

His only reason for not going to sweden is because he is afraid that they will extradite him to the USA.

Do you know why it has taken so many years for the Swedes to finally interview him?

fits

I was following the wikileaks page in run up to the US election and got the very strong impression it was being used to serve other interests. The amount of stuff they released about Clinton and none of it showed any substantive wrongdoing despite claims to the contrary. I think he has lost the plot to be honest and i am not following any more.

seamus

The recent activity by wikileaks has made me lose a lot of respect for Assange.

Whereas wikileaks claimed to be a bastion of transparency and a protector of the people, it's become clear that their motive is to influence governments and populations through intimidation and blackmail.

Advbrd

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Well he is in a very unique situation that the vast majority of people have never had to go through. The doctor also made the comparison of his situation to being held in long term solitary confinement in a maximum security prison.

They are more than fine and adequate comparisons to me considering the doctors rational behind him saying it and the first hand experience he has of the situation.

I don't think anyone can say something is 'overstated' if a person has been confined to the same room for years, hasn't seen daylight, has been surrounded by armed guards 24/7 and hasn't seen their family in so long.

Yes he is deprived of a lot of freedom but he is not in a cramped cell, he is not subject to torture, he is not regularly shackled, to throw out but a few differences to the two situations. Thus I do think comparing his situation to that of a Gitmo detainee is overstating things just a tad.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Advbrd wrote: »

Yes he is deprived of a lot of freedom but he is not in a cramped cell, he is not subject to torture, he is not regularly shackled, to throw out but a few differences to the two situations. Thus I do think comparing his situation to that of a Gitmo detainee is overstating things just a tad.

I think a person going through either of the situations will experience an anguish at the extreme high end of the scale and trying to make some distinctions between the two feels silly.

Advbrd

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I think a person going through either of the situations will experience an anguish at the extreme high end of the scale and trying to make some distinctions between the two feels silly.

We'll agree to differ on that. I know where I would rather be.
Do you know whether he would be deported to the US if he left the embassy? Have the statute of limitations expired on all charges apart from the Swedish rape allegation?

irishash

I am no sympathy for him at all. He is using the implied threat of the US trying to extradite him as a excuse to run from sexual assault charges that occurred in Sweden. Do many people know what he has been accused of? It's not rape per say - He is accused of having unprotected sex with two women without their consent in regards to protection. Both women admit the sex was consenual but his actions during the sex was not acceptable to them (tearing a condom, engaging in sex with a sleeping woman)

If he had consented to a STD test as requested by the two women, then none of this would be an issue right now. He regarded this request as blackmail. So the women went to the police to get them to compel him to take a test. This is when the Swedish prosecutor gets involved, and when it is deemed a sexual assault took place.

He has a case to answer, and there is little doubt over this. The man is a coward who cannot face up to the actions he has taken in the past. He may be proven innocent by a Swedish court, if it gets that far, but he has litte interest in defending himself, preferring others to do it for him. By all accounts he is a deeply unsavoury individual in private with little regard for the wellbeing of anybody else, as evidence by his interactions with Guardian journos who were concerned over his lack of redacting in regards to US informants in Iraq.

I have a feeling that Ecuador, having taken him in due to bad relations with the US at the time, would gladly be rid of him now.

Ewekiddingme

I had sympathy in the past when it seemed Wikileaks were interested in total transparency. But lately, it feels like the info dumps have been strategically timed or withheld based on political factors. The organisation seems to have a political agenda now rather than being simply being a whistle blower.

astrofool

I don't think the statute of limitations should apply if you're just hiding from being charged.

The real issue is why the UK is putting up with Ecuador flouting their laws so openly, and why they haven't cut off diplomatic relations and expelled them. What Assange is doing is making a precedent for every other ne'er do well to hide away from justice, remembering that there are victims in this who must realise that a trial will never happen. The rapist Polanski being another insidious individual who hides away from the consequences of his own actions.

bucketybuck

Is there not one small but significant difference between his situation and being in Guantamano?

Namely the fact that he could walk out of that embassy any time he wanted...

irishash

astrofool wrote: »

The rapist Polanski being another insidious individual who hides away from the consequences of his own actions.

That is a completely different situation and to compare it to this is not apt. I would suggest you watch "Roman Polanski: Wanted and desired" to get some context on that case

humanji

astrofool wrote: »

I don't think the statute of limitations should apply if you're just hiding from being charged.

The real issue is why the UK is putting up with Ecuador flouting their laws so openly, and why they haven't cut off diplomatic relations and expelled them. What Assange is doing is making a precedent for every other ne'er do well to hide away from justice, remembering that there are victims in this who must realise that a trial will never happen. The rapist Polanski being another insidious individual who hides away from the consequences of his own actions.

One person abusing a system isn't enough reason to abolish the entire system, especially when it's worked well many times before. And it can only set a precedent for people in the same situation, which would be incredibly rare.

Lux23

No, he is dirty b**llox. Can't stand the sight of him.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Advbrd wrote: »

We'll agree to differ on that. I know where I would rather be.
Do you know whether he would be deported to the US if he left the embassy? Have the statute of limitations expired on all charges apart from the Swedish rape allegation?

I'd just rather be in neither tbh.
He would almost certainly be extradited to the US and spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement.

irishash wrote: »

I am no sympathy for him at all. He is using the implied threat of the US trying to extradite him as a excuse to run from sexual assault charges that occurred in Sweden. Do many people know what he has been accused of? It's not rape per say - He is accused of having unprotected sex with two women without their consent in regards to protection. Both women admit the sex was consenual but his actions during the sex was not acceptable to them (tearing a condom, engaging in sex with a sleeping woman)

If he had consented to a STD test as requested by the two women, then none of this would be an issue right now. He regarded this request as blackmail. So the women went to the police to get them to compel him to take a test. This is when the Swedish prosecutor gets involved, and when it is deemed a sexual assault took place.

He has a case to answer, and there is little doubt over this. The man is a coward who cannot face up to the actions he has taken in the past. He may be proven innocent by a Swedish court, if it gets that far, but he has litte interest in defending himself, preferring others to do it for him. By all accounts he is a deeply unsavoury individual in private with little regard for the wellbeing of anybody else, as evidence by his interactions with Guardian journos who were concerned over his lack of redacting in regards to US informants in Iraq.

I have a feeling that Ecuador, having taken him in due to bad relations with the US at the time, would gladly be rid of him now.

I'm sure he would have answered any questions if he had the assurance he wasn't going to spend the rest of his life in a US cell on entirely separate charges.

To call him a coward is cheap coming from someone typing behind a computer screen. His actions with WikiLeaks have put him under intense scrutiny from multiple governments and changed his life irrevocably. Agree with him or not, he has put himself at more risk than the vast majority of people would ever even dream of.

Do you think Snowden and Manning are cowards too?

johnny_ultimate

I have an inherent sympathy for Wikileaks and the work they do - if there is some insidious happenings, they deserve to be revealed. But at the same I think Julian Assange is his own worst enemy.

I have no particularly strong opinions about his legal troubles. If he is indeed innocent, I would fully respect him if he stepped forward and dealt with the charges. At the same time, I think his fears about extradition or political persecution are a mix of justified and somewhat hyperbolic - although sadly with the US it wouldn't surprise me what they'd do given the opportunity. It remains his choice to stay in the embassy, and honestly I really can't decide if that's the right or wrong decision. Leaning towards 'right'.

Ultimately, I feel Wikileaks continue to do some good work but have also manufactured their own problems. I do not feel indiscriminate dumping of emails is a healthy approach - ones of public importance or significance, absolutely, but full-on dumps of personal/professional accounts is IMO transparency taken a step too far and comes in active conflict with rights to privacy. Even the politically influential and powerful are entitled to personal privacy. The removal of a journalistic middle-man also causes problems when there's no grounds to provide context to the material (of course, journalistic filtering can and does also bring its own problems, but IMO the benefits outweigh the cons). In the worst case scenario, it can feed dark, barely coherent conspiracy theories - and, indeed, during the election there was several examples of Wikileaks themselves actively feeding nonsense conspiracies (the 'Spirit Cooking' hilarity is one I noted, in which the entire wingnut media suddenly decided to fail to understand Marina Abramović's work and somehow link the Clinton campaign with satanism). It's in those moments Wikileaks comes across less as a neutral party attempting to admirably challenge global elites, and instead an organisation or indeed individual with more insidious political motives.

For me, Edward Snowden remains the model for modern whistleblowers and 'leakers'. He fully considered the ethical and moral consequences of his decision. He understood the value and importance of what he was doing, and didn't just want to watch the world the burn. His arguments ever since have been intellectually consistent and understandable. While certainly Assange has done much good work - and continues to do so, as there was some valuable and worthwhile revelations in the Podesta and DNC leaks - he also continues to give the impression of a man whose personal & political agendas - and, unfortunately, ego - often seem to endanger or undermine his organisation's motives and approach (as a point of balance, I do not think that failure to leak Trump or GOP-related material in-and-of-itself displays a clear bias - it might, and Assange's past comments haven't necessarily allayed those fears, but they also simply may not have had the material to leak).

I think this conversation between Naomi Klein and Glenn Greenwald really got to the heart of some of the issues.

NK: This is why I say I’m nervous. I’m not comfortable with anybody wielding this much power.

I am not comfortable when it’s states, but I’m also not comfortable when it’s individuals or institutions. I don’t like people making decisions based on vendettas because the message it sends is: “If you cross me, this could happen to you.” That’s a menacing message to send. Now I acknowledge that this could be over the edge, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s had that thought, and I think we have to acknowledge that this is how fear spreads. It isn’t only states that are capable of sending that message .The level of ego makes me uncomfortable given the role of ego in this election cycle and people thinking these elections are just all about them personally. We don’t need somebody else treating it like that.

Outlaw Pete

Lux23 wrote: »

No, he is dirty b**llox.

Stop dirty bollox shaming.

humanji

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

To call him a coward is cheap coming from someone typing behind a computer screen. His actions with WikiLeaks have put him under intense scrutiny from multiple governments and changed his life irrevocably. Agree with him or not, he has put himself at more risk than the vast majority of people would ever even dream of.

But he's also put others at risk and doesn't care, even going so far as to say of informers that they deserve to die. He's gone out of his way to destroy any goodwill earned early on in Wikileaks life, and it's just another biased media outlet now.

osarusan

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

He would almost certainly be extradited to the US and spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement.

I don't think this is true - there are many questions over exactly what crime he has committed (if any) and whether Sweden could or would agree to extradite him.

I don't agree that his extradition to the USA would be almost certain.

irishash

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

To call him a coward is cheap coming from someone typing behind a computer screen.

Do you think Snowden and Manning are cowards too?

You have your opinion of him and I have mine. You choose to believe he is a bastion for truth and justice, and I believe he is a man with a very large ego who wants to be talked about for any reason.

I don't think Snowden or Manning are cowards, but then again I never mentioned them or what they did. I am only talking about Assange.

Assange has never been charged with a crime by the US authorities and using the pretence of charges forthcoming to try and get away with answering very valid and serious sexual assault charges is cowardly.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I have an inherent sympathy for Wikileaks and the work they do - if there is some insidious happenings, they deserve to be revealed. But at the same I think Julian Assange is his own worst enemy.

I have no particularly strong opinions about his legal troubles. If he is indeed innocent, I would fully respect him if he stepped forward and dealt with the charges. At the same time, I think his fears about extradition or political persecution are a mix of justified and somewhat hyperbolic - although sadly with the US it wouldn't surprise me what they'd do given the opportunity. It remains his choice to stay in the embassy, and honestly I really can't decide if that's the right or wrong decision. Leaning towards 'right'.

Ultimately, I feel Wikileaks continue to do some good work but have also manufactured their own problems. I do not feel indiscriminate dumping of emails is a healthy approach - ones of public importance or significance, absolutely, but full-on dumps of personal/professional accounts is IMO transparency taken a step too far and comes in active conflict with rights to privacy. Even the politically influential and powerful are entitled to personal privacy. The removal of a journalistic middle-man also causes problems when there's no grounds to provide context to the material (of course, journalistic filtering can and does also bring its own problems, but IMO the benefits outweigh the cons). In the worst case scenario, it can feed dark, barely coherent conspiracy theories - and, indeed, during the election there was several examples of Wikileaks themselves actively feeding nonsense conspiracies (the 'Spirit Cooking' hilarity is one I noted, in which the entire wingnut media suddenly decided to fail to understand Marina Abramović's work). It's in those moments Wikileaks comes across less as a neutral party attempting to admirably challenge global elites, and instead an organisation or indeed individual with more insidious political motives.

For me, Edward Snowden remains the model for modern whistleblowers and 'leakers'. He fully considered the ethical and moral consequences of his decision. He understood the value and importance of what he was doing, and didn't just want to watch the world the burn. His arguments ever since have been intellectually consistent and understandable. While certainly Assange has done much good work - and continues to do so, as there was some valuable and worthwhile revelations in the Podesta and DNC leaks - he also continues to give the impression of a man whose personal & political agendas - and, unfortunately, ego - often seem to endanger or undermine his organisation's motives and approach (as a point of balance, I do not think that failure to leak Trump or GOP-related material in-and-of-itself displays a clear bias - it might, and Assange's past comments haven't necessarily allayed those fears, but they also simply may not have had the material to leak).

I think this conversation between Naomi Klein and Glenn Greenwald really got to the heart of some of the issues.

I agree with the sentiments of your post and think you are right, albeit in somewhat of an idealistic way. The bit I bolded in your post runs contrary to how the UK operates, Your entire internet history to be viewable by PSNI, taxman, DWP and Food Standards Agency and other government bodies within weeks. If we are going to hold individuals, organisations and groups of people to certain standards regarding how you use the internet than the rules should apply to governments too in my opinion.

humanji wrote: »

But he's also put others at risk and doesn't care, even going so far as to say of informers that they deserve to die. He's gone out of his way to destroy any goodwill earned early on in Wikileaks life, and it's just another biased media outlet now.

I wonder what they possibly held back from releasing on Trump. In time hopefully the whole truth comes out about it.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

irishash wrote: »

You have your opinion of him and I have mine. You choose to believe he is a bastion for truth and justice, and I believe he is a man with a very large ego who wants to be talked about for any reason.

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

irishash

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I wonder what they possibly held back from releasing on Trump. In time hopefully the whole truth comes out about it.

It is doubtful they have anything on Trump. A lot of what Wikileaks published came from the hack of the DNC servers. An attack that is highly suspected as been done by Russian state backed hacker.

johnny_ultimate

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I agree with the sentiments of your post and think you are right, albeit in somewhat of an idealistic way. The bit I bolded in your post runs contrary to how the UK operates, Your entire internet history to be viewable by PSNI, taxman, DWP and Food Standards Agency and other government bodies within weeks. If we are going to hold individuals, organisations and groups of people to certain standards regarding how you use the internet than the rules should apply to governments too in my opinion.

Absolutely, and I am very much opposed to any such sweeping surveillance powers!

astrofool

It's a pity about Snowden as he basically gave up his previous life for a cause he believed in, but what he revealed wasn't exactly shocking, anyone with a brain who knows about IT knows how easy it is to gather data like that, the market for zero day exploits, the security is an illusion, and if you put something onto an electronic device, somebody else can access it (just as they could in the analogue world, except digital makes it easier to do en masse). One thing he did do was get it into the laymans consciousness, but his "revelations" and secrets were as shocking as the sun rising in the east.

astrofool

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Your entire internet history to be viewable by PSNI, taxman, DWP and Food Standards Agency and other government bodies within weeks.

This is already happening, may as well be up front about it, rather than pretending it isn't happening at all.

swimming in a sea

Does anybody know if Sweden is predisposed to allowing US extradition? as I would have thought the most likely European country to extradite someone to the US would be the UK. They sure have shafted a good few of their citizens in the last few years.

sbsquarepants

irishash wrote: »

If he had consented to a STD test as requested by the two women, then none of this would be an issue right now. He regarded this request as blackmail. So the women went to the police to get them to compel him to take a test. This is when the Swedish prosecutor gets involved, and when it is deemed a sexual assault took place.

.

Could the women not just have gotten those tests themselves? Is that not what any sane person would have done?
I'm not too well versed in the details of the case but that just doesn't make sense to me.

osarusan

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Does anybody know if Sweden is predisposed to allowing US extradition? as I would have thought the most likely European country to extradite someone to the US would be the UK. They sure have shafted a good few of their citizens in the last few years.

First of all, the US would have to request it, and even the request is not a certainty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials.

...

“The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists,” said former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller. “And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.”

Even if they did make such a request, not every crime is covered by an extradition treaty. The most likely charge of 'espionage' is not covered.

Then, Swedish courts would have to agree with extradition (by finding that there was no reason preventing extradition).

Finally, both the Swedish and UK governments would need to approve the extradition.

Jimbob1977

It must be soul destroying to be confined to the same building for years, although he has adequate food, shelter and mod cons.

I'm surprised he hasn't tried to get himself smuggled out in a diplomatic pouch or specially accredited as an Ecuadorian diplomat.